Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

W.P.(C) 914/2019 & CM APPL. 4125/2019 (for stay)

Disposition

allowed

Attorney(S)

Mr. M.S. Syali, Senior Advocate with Mr. Mayank Nagi and Mr. Tarun Singh, Advocates.
Mr. Harpreet Singh, Sr. Standing Counsel with Ms. Suhani Mathur, Advocate.

Judges

S. Muralidhar
Prateek Jalan, JJ.

Acts

SECTION 37 B CENTRAL EXCISE ACT 1944
SECTION 83 FINANCE ACT 1994
FINANCE ACT 1994
SECTION 75 FINANCE ACT 1994
Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994.
Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Section 174 of the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act)

See more information ...

Smart Summary

High Court of Delhi — W.P.(C) 914/2019 & CM APPL. 4125/2019 (for stay) — Bench: S. Muralidhar & Prateek Jalan, JJ. — Order dated 08.05.2019

Factual and Procedural Background

The petitioner, Amadeus India Pvt. Ltd. (AIPL), provides computer data processing software used by travel agents and ticketing entities in the airline industry. A CESTAT decision in Acquired Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Service Tax (2014) 36 STR 1148 (TRI-10) held that services provided by AIPL to overseas entities did not constitute business auxiliary services or export of services; that decision is stated to be pending in appeal before the Supreme Court of India.

The Anti-evasion Unit of the Service Tax Commissionerate conducted a search of the petitioner’s registered premises on 20 August 2016; the search continued until 5 September 2016, during which statements of petitioner representatives were recorded under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994. The petitioner furnished details on 5 September 2016 in response.

On 10 August 2018 the respondent issued fresh summons seeking audited balance sheets, reconciliation statements of taxable value declared in ST-3 returns, month-wise invoices and agreements. The petitioner submitted the requested information on 17, 24 and 30 August 2018. The respondent issued the impugned show cause notice (SCN) dated 4 September 2018 alleging non-payment of service tax for the period 2012–2013 to 2016–2017, specifying a tax demand of Rs. 99,45,64,411/-, and proposing penalty under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Section 174 of the CGST Act, 2017 and interest under Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994.

The petitioner, by letters dated 3 October 2018 and a reminder on 13 November 2018, drew attention to the CBEC Master Circular dated 10 March 2017 and an instruction dated 21 December 2015 which, in the petitioner’s submission, make pre-show-cause-notice consultation mandatory for demands above Rs. 50 lakhs. When no response was received, the petitioner filed the present writ petition on 13 December 2018. The Court directed production of the relevant records on 12 February 2019 and heard senior counsel for both parties.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether, prior to issuing the impugned show cause notice dated 4 September 2018, the respondent ought to have held a pre-notice consultation with the petitioner in terms of paragraph 5.0 of the CBEC Master Circular dated 10 March 2017?
Whether the exceptions to paragraph 5.0 (that is, where the SCN is preventive or is related to an offence) applied so as to dispense with any obligation to conduct a pre-SCN consultation in this case?

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner’s Arguments

The petitioner contended that paragraph 5.0 of the CBEC Master Circular dated 10 March 2017 (and the CBEC instruction dated 21 December 2015) mandated a pre-show-cause-notice consultation by the Commissioner/Principal Commissioner in cases involving demands above Rs. 50 lakhs.
The petitioner drew the respondent’s attention to the Master Circular on 3 October 2018 and sent a reminder on 13 November 2018; in the absence of a response, the petitioner filed the writ petition challenging the SCN dated 4 September 2018.
The petitioner placed submissions dated 24 August 2018 (filed in response to the respondent’s communication dated 20 August 2018) before the Court and sought that the respondent be directed to follow the consultation process required by the Master Circular.

Respondent’s Arguments

The respondent accepted that the SCN was not "preventive" but argued that because the SCN was preceded by a search at the petitioner’s premises and statements were recorded, and the petitioner was alleged to have suppressed facts and contravened statutory provisions with intent to evade payment of service tax, the SCN partook of the character of an "offence-related" SCN and thus fell within the exceptions in paragraph 5.0 of the Master Circular.
In response to the Court’s query as to whether a conscious decision had been recorded in the file to forgo the pre-SCN consultation under para 5.0, the respondent’s counsel stated there was no such noting in the file.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Acquired Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Service Tax (2014) 36 STR 1148 (TRI-10)	CESTAT decision that services provided by AIPL to overseas entities did not constitute business auxiliary services or export of services (noted as pending in appeal to the Supreme Court).	Referred to as factual/background material concerning the nature of the petitioner’s services and ongoing litigation; used in the factual matrix but not as the basis for the order on para 5.0.
State of Tamil Nadu v. India Cements Ltd. (2011) 13 SCC 247 (SC)	Cited as illustrative authority for the well-settled legal position (in context, supporting the binding character of instructions by the Board and the legal foundation for treating the Master Circular as mandatory).	Relied upon to underpin the Court’s view that the Master Circular carries a mandatory character traceable to statutory provisions (Section 83 of the Finance Act read with Section 37B of the Central Excise Act, 1944).
Tube Investment of India Ltd. v. Union of India — W.P.(C).11858/2017 (High Court of Judicature at Madras), judgment dated 9 February 2018	Demonstrates that where para 5.0 of the Master Circular was not adhered to, the High Court set aside the challenged SCN and restored the parties to the stage prior to issuance of the SCN.	Applied as specific precedent: the Court noted that, in a similar factual circumstance, non-adherence to para 5.0 led to setting aside the SCN and remitting the matter to the pre-issue stage; this supported the Court’s decision in the present case to set aside the impugned SCN.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court began by identifying paragraph 5.0 of the CBEC Master Circular (10 March 2017) which makes pre-show-cause-notice consultation by the Principal Commissioner/Commissioner mandatory in cases involving demands above Rs. 50 lakhs, except in two situations: (a) preventive SCNs and (b) SCNs related to an offence under the Finance Act, 1994.

The Court examined whether either exception applied. It observed that the alleged non-payment of service tax related to the period 2012–2013 to 2016–2017 and therefore the SCN was not of a "preventive" character — a fact not disputed by the respondent. The respondent’s primary contention was that the SCN was “offence-related” because it was preceded by a search and statements and because the petitioner allegedly suppressed facts with intent to evade tax.

The Court rejected the respondent’s contention for multiple reasons stated in the order:

The object of para 5.0 is to narrow down the scope of the dispute by engaging the assessee on specific areas where the department may require clarification, especially in relation to documents recovered during a search or statements recorded. Consultation is meant to facilitate clarification on such points.
The mere possibility that adjudication might ultimately establish an offence does not, by itself, convert every SCN into an "offence-related" SCN exempted from para 5.0. If that were accepted, the exception would swallow the rule and render the pre-notice consultation redundant in virtually all cases.
Without completing adjudication, the respondent cannot conclusively determine whether an offence is made out; therefore, the exception cannot be invoked merely on suspicion or possibility.
The Court specifically asked whether a conscious decision was taken and recorded in the file to forgo the pre-SCN consultation under para 5.0; the respondent’s counsel confirmed there was no such noting, indicating that the Master Circular had not been considered before issuing the SCN.
The Court traced the mandatory character of the Master Circular to statutory provisions: Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994 makes Section 37B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 applicable in relation to service tax, and in terms of Section 37B instructions issued by the CBEC are binding on departmental officers. The Court noted that the legal position in this regard is well-settled (referring illustratively to State of Tamil Nadu v. India Cements Ltd.).
The Court also relied on the Madras High Court decision in Tube Investment of India Ltd. where non-adherence to para 5.0 led to setting aside the SCN and reinstatement of the parties to the stage prior to issuance of the SCN.

On this analysis, the Court concluded that neither exception in para 5.0 applied in the present case and that the respondent ought to have engaged the petitioner in a pre-SCN consultation before issuing the impugned notice.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The Court set aside the impugned show cause notice dated 4 September 2018 and relegated the parties to the stage prior to issuance of that SCN. The Court directed the respondent to fix a date to hear the authorised representative of the petitioner in relation to issues highlighted in the petitioner’s submission dated 24 August 2018 (filed in response to the respondent’s communication dated 20 August 2018). The petitioner was directed to cooperate and furnish necessary information.

The petition was allowed and the related application disposed of; there was no order as to costs.

Implications: The direct effect of the decision is the quashing of the specific SCN dated 4 September 2018 and the remittance of the matter to the pre-notice stage for the mandatory pre-SCN consultation required by para 5.0 of the Master Circular. The Court did not express any view on the merits of the underlying tax issues, and the order does not purport to lay down a new precedent beyond applying the Master Circular and the cited authorities to the facts of the case.

Show full summary ...

To access the original judgment, please Sign In or Subscribe.

Amadeus India Pvt. Ltd . v. Principal Commissioner, Central Excise, Service Tax And Central Tax Commissionerate .

$~9 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 914/2019 & CM APPL. 4125/2019 (for stay)

AMADEUS INDIA PVT. LTD. ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. M.S. Syali, Senior Advocate with Mr. Mayank Nagi and Mr. Tarun

Singh, Advocates.

versus

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL

EXCISE, SERVICE TAX AND CENTRAL TAX

COMMISSIONERATE ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Harpreet Singh, Sr. Standing Counsel with Ms. Suhani Mathur, Advocate.

CORAM:

JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR

JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN

O R D E R

% 08.05.2019 Dr. S. Muralidhar, J.:

1. The present writ petition by Amadeus India Pvt. Ltd.(AIPL) is in a narrow compass. The question that arises is whether prior to issuing the impugned show cause notice (SCN) dated 4^thSeptember 2018, the Office of the Principal Commissioner, Central Excise, Service Tax and Central Tax Commissionerate, Delhi South (the Respondent herein) ought to have held a pre-notice consultation with the Petitioner in terms of para 5.0 of „Master Circular" dated 10^thMarch, 2017 issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs („CBEC")?

2. The facts in brief are that the Petitioner provides, inter alia, computer data processing software, which is used by travel agents and ticket booking entities in the Airline industry. The question whether the services provided by the Petitioner is amenable to service tax engaged the attention of the Customs Excise Services Tax Appellate Tribunal („CESTAT") Principal Bench in Acquired Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Service Tax (2014) 36 STR 1148 (TRI-10). The CESTAT held that the services provided by AIPL to overseas entities did not constitute either business auxilliary services or export of services. The said decision is stated to be pending in appeal before the Supreme Court of India.

3. It appears that on 20^thAugust 2016, the Anti-evasion Unit of the Service Tax Commisionerate undertook a search of the registered premises of the Petitioner. During the course of search which continued till 5^thSeptember, 2016, statements of representatives of the Petitioner were recorded under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994. In response to the queries raised by the Respondents, the Petitioner furnished details by a letter dated 5^thSeptember, 2016.

4. After nearly 2 years, on 10^thAugust 2018, fresh summons were issued to the Petitioner seeking the audited balance sheets, reconciliation statements of taxable value declared in ST-3 returns, month wise invoices copies of agreements between the Amadeus IT Group etc. According to the Petitioner, it submitted the requisite information on 17^thAugust 2018 and again on 24^th August, 2018 and 30^thAugust, 2018. A copy of the said submission dated 24^thAugust, 2018 filed by the Petitioner in response to a letter dated 20^th

August, 2018 has been placed before this Court. 5.Thereafter on 4^thSeptember, 2018 the impugned SCN was issued by the Respondent to the Petitioner, inter alia, alleging that tax was not paid on taxable services rendered by the Petitioner. The SCN specified the quantum of tax that was required to be paid by the Petitioner as Rs. 99,45,64,411/-. The Petitioner was also asked to show cause why penalty under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Section 174 of the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) should not be levied, in addition to the recovery of interest under Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994.

6. On 3^rdOctober 2018, the Petitioner drew the attention of the Respondent to the Master Circular dated 10^thMarch, 2017 read with an instruction dated 21^stDecember, 2015 issued by the CBEC in terms of which a pre-show cause notice consultation was mandatory in cases involving demand of duty above Rs. 50 Lakhs. A reminder was again sent by the Petitioner on 13^th November, 2018. When no response was received, the present writ petition was filed on13th December, 2018.

7. While directing notice to be issued on 12^thFebruary, 2019 this Court required the Respondent to produce the records „including summary or the report pursuant to the investigatins and enquiry, which pre-dated the impugned show cause notice".

8. This Court has heard the submissions of Mr. M.S. Syali, learned senior counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. Harpreet Singh, learned Sr. Standing

Counsel for the Respondent.

9. Before proceeding to examine the facts leading to the filing of the present petition, it is necessary to advert to the background to the issuance of the Master Circular by the CBEC. The first report of the Tax Administration Reform Commission („TARC") made a recommendation that

"It is desirable to avoid disputes where a collaborative approach can provide a solution. An administrative pre-dispute consultation mechanism may be instituted in both the organizations for resolving tax disputes at the pre-notice stage through an open dialogue with the taxpayer, in which both sides articulate and discuss their respective positions and views on the matter at hand. An amicable resolution would be possible when a common view emerges on the facts and the legal position. It is expected that this process, if followed in proper spirit, would lead to elimination of a large number disputes leaving only a few contentious matters in which mutual agreement is not reached. Such disputes would follow other legal channels."

10. Further, the TARC was of the view that the tax officers should not be allowed to resort to coercive actions for recoveries during the consultation process. The TARC recommended that only those officers competent to issue notices should engage in such consulation; they should adopt „an open and receptive attitude and give full consideration to tax payer"s points of view first before formulating their own opinion." This exercise was to narrowed down the issues and confine the notice only „in respect of unreserved issues". Further the points on which agreement has been reached should not be contested any further by either party.

11. The above recommendations were accepted and the CBEC issued the

Master Circular on 10^thMarch, 2017. The relevant paragraph of the said Master Circular, which has been relied upon by both parties reads as under:

"5.0 Consultation with the noticee before issue of Show Cause Notice:

Board has made pre show cause notice consultation by the Principal Commissioner/ Commissioner prior to issue of show cause notice in cases involving demands of duty above Rs. 50 lakhs (except for preventive/ offence related SCNs) mandatory vide instruction issued from F No. 1080/09/DLA/MISC/15 dated 21st December 2015. Such consultation shall be done by the adjudicating authority with the assessee concerned. This is an important step towards trade facilitation and promoting voluntary compliance and to reduce the necessity of issuing show cause notice."

12. It will be immediately noticed that there are two exceptions carved out for the Respondent to engage in a pre-SCN consultation. The first is that the SCN is preventive and the second is that it is related to an offence in terms of the Finance Act, 1994.

13. In the present case, as is evident from the impugned SCN, the alleged non-payment of service tax pertains to period between 2012-2013 to 2016- 2017. Consequently, there is no „preventive" aspect involved in the SCN and this is not even disputed by learned counsel for the Respondent. However, what is urged before the Court by the Respondent is that since the SCN was preceded by a search that was conducted in the business premises of the Petitioner, and the Petitioner also rendered itself liable for penal action „for suppression of facts and contravention of various statutory provisions with intent to evade payment of due service tax" and other incidental levies, the

SCN partakes of the character of an „offence related" SCN and therefore falls within the exceptions carved out under para 5.0 of the Master Circular.

14. The above submission runs contrary to the very object of para 5.0 which is to narrow down the scope of the dispute by engaging the Assessee on specific areas where the Respondent may require information/clarification from the Assessee regarding alleged evasion of service tax. In the context of the present case, in relation to documents recovered during the search and statements recorded of representatives to the Petitioner in that process, several questions may have arisen for consideration by the Respondent which may require a clarification from the Petitioner as to its conduct. It is to facilitate this very exercise that para 5.0 finds place in the Master Circular. The mere possibility that at the end of the adjudication process, the Petitioner may have to face consequences for having committed an „offence" under Finance Act, 1994 need not per se render the SCN itself as an „offence related" SCN. If that were to be the logic, then in every case para

5.0 can be dispensed with on the ground that the adjudication of the SCN is likely to be lead to the noticee facing proceedings for having committed an offence. The exception would then become the rule and not vice versa, and the need for any pre-notice consultation being rendered redundant. Further, without the conclusion of the adjudication on the SCN, the Respondent would not be in a position to decide whether an offence is made out.

15. In any event, as far as the present case is concerned the officers of the Respondent do not appear to have taken any conscious decision in regard to the requirement of the Master Circular. A pointed question was posed by the

Court to Mr.Harpreet Singh whether prior to issuing the impugned SCN, a decision was taken by the Respondent in the light of para 5.0 of the Master Circular not to undertake the pre-notice consultation. After going through the notes in file, Mr. Harpreet Singh stated that there was no noting in the file to that effect. In other words, it appears that the Respondent completely ignored the Master Circular before proceeding to issue the impugned SCN.

16. The mandatory character of the Master Circular can be traced to Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994 which makes Section 37 B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 applicable in relation to service tax. In terms Section 37 B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 instructions issued by the CBEC would be binding on the officers of the Department.

17. The legal position in this regard is well-settled. Illustratively a reference may be made to the decision in State of Tamil Nadu v. India Cements Ltd. (2011) 13 SCC 247 (SC). Specific to the Master Circular, a reference may be made to the judgment dated 9^thFebruary, 2018 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in W.P.(C). 11858/2017 (Tube Investment of India Ltd. v. Union of India). In that case, after noticing that para 5.0 of the Master Circular was not adhered to, the High Court set aside the SCN challenged and delegated the parties to stage prior to the issuance of the

SCN.

18. In the present case, the Court is satisfied that it was necessary in terms of para 5.0 of the Master Circular for the Respondent to have engaged with the Petitioner in a pre SCN consultation, particularly, since in the considered

view of the Court neither of the exceptions specified in para 5.0 were attracted in the present case.

19. Accordingly, without expressing any view on the merits of the case of either party in relation to the issues raised in the impugned SCN, the Court sets aside the impugned SCN dated 4^thSeptember, 2018 and relegates the parties to the stage prior to issuance of impugned SCN. The Respondent will now fix a date on which the authorised representative of the Petitioner would be heard in relation to the issues highlighted in the submissions dated 24^thAugust, 2018 of the Peititioner in response to the communicatioin dated 20^thAugust, 2018 addressed to it by the Respondent. Needless to state that the Petitioner will extend its full cooperation to the Respondent by providing the necessary information.

20. The petition is allowed in the above terms. The application is disposed of. No order as to costs.

S.MURALIDHAR, J.

PRATEEK JALAN, J.

MAY 08, 2019

Amadeus India Pvt. L... v. Principal Commission...